ma_testfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Columbia
Space shuttle The NASA Website gives the Columbia's registry number as STS-107 - here. Alex Peckover 19:24, Jun 3, 2004 (CEST) :That's not its registry number - it's the mission the shuttle was lost on. Its registry is, I believe, OV-102, being the second orbiter built. -- Michael Warren 19:31, 3 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::Look no further than the Memory Alpha Super-Sized Enterprise (OV-101)#Numbering scheme article for a list of all the shuttle registries. --Captain Michael Kurt Tiberius Bartel 19:48, 3 Jun 2004 (CEST) Transfer I never got the impression from that Tucker's request for a transfer was denied, I'm not talking initally, but after he pleaded/explained, the final words/actions sure seems to indicate that he doing it. --Gvsualan 17:01, 19 Feb 2005 (GMT) Latin Does anyone know Latin? The article should include a translation of the slogan on the Mission Patch. --Werideatdusk 03:39, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC) :Done and done. On the bottom, I put that "Fortune Favors the Bold." -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 03:44, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC) Speculation Regarding the background paragraph which reads: Fan speculations have lead to the belief that after the NX-02 was retired after the Earth-Romulan War, that it was sold to a private science organization, and became the Columbia that later crashed on Talos Four. Later to be discovered by Captain Christopher Pike. I have never heard of such speculation. Is there really any factual basis for this? --From Andoria with Love 04:09, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC) :I removed the above. That is even more speculative than saying that the Vulcans gave Earth Enterprise (XCV-330) because of the similar "hoop-arrow" design. --Alan del Beccio 10:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Sidebar Old sidebar moved here. Some information might need to be re-included, eventually cited if it hasn't already. Also see Template talk:Sidebar starship. -- Cid Highwind 15:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC) ---- First image, affiliation and type are part of the new sidebar, defenses, armament and transportation are part of the article " ", which is linked from the new sidebar. The second image will be added to the article now. I believe that should be it, then? -- Cid Highwind 16:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Mission Patch I believe there is a spelling error in the mission patch. It says "juvat", but, actually, it should be "iuvat". In Latin a certain pronunciation scheme exists: Whenever a word starts with an "i" that is followed by another vowel, the "i" and the vowel "fuse", so to speak. For example, there is the expression "de iure" (meaning: by rights), which can - at least in German (my mother tongue) - be spelled "de jure", too. With this language of today that is perfectly okay. In either case (and because the construction "iu" starts the word) it's spoken like: "de you-re". This (namely replacing the "i" with a "j"), however, is an invention of modern languages, not a trait of the original Latin, which did not feature the letter "j" at all. Therefore, and because "Audentes F/fortuna iuvat" is an original quote from Virgil, I think the spelling is wrong. That could be pointed out to in a little footnote. (Or is there an explanation that proves it is correct?) Ambassador 00:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC) : Someone asked me this: Doesn't "de' mean "down"? :: Perhaps. I shall look that up in my dictionary. But it's best translated with 'of'. Ambassador 17:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Article Name Although I know there's not to many instances of a vessel named Columbia, shouldn't the ships known, and established registry (It has even been referred to as NX-02) be in the title of the article? --Terran Officer 01:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC) :There's no other ships known simply by the name of Columbia (there's a Columbia, an SS Columbia, and a USS Columbia), so the registry qualifier (NX-02) is not necessary. It's the same with , among several others. --From Andoria with Love 01:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Incorrect picture? The sidebar for the Columbia shows a picture of what I believe is the Enterprise. Is that correct? Shouldn't it be a picture of Columbia? I don't have a picture or screencap so I can't change it. R2data 13:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC) :Nope, it's the Columbia. If you look at the picture, you can see "NX-02 Columbia" inscribed on its hull. The image comes from . --From Andoria with Love 14:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Dates of Construction It's been a while since I have seen , but was it mentioned that construction had began in 2153? I can see the references for it's planned (and eventual) completion in 2154, but I cannot recall if anyone said something that suggested the ship began construction in 2153.--Terran Officer 00:23, June 13, 2010 (UTC) :There is a picture in the article of it under construction in 2153, from that episode. It might not have been named yet (don't recall), but it was at least designated NX-02. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:52, June 13, 2010 (UTC) Right, but the article says it began construction in 2153, what I am asking is, is there evidence of this, because Enterprise was built from 2149-2151 and was launched early, I know that's not really 'evidence' but I meant so far as, that considering it was April, 2153 in that scene and how far it is, I was wondering if we know or not it had began in 2153, or in 2152, etc... but... I suppose... that is evidence it did in 2153, and that they could have gotten that far in a few months... --Terran Officer 03:12, June 13, 2010 (UTC) :Actually, the article says it was still under construction in 2153. It doesn't say when construction started. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:39, June 13, 2010 (UTC) Oh... I for some reason thought it did, but I think tie 2153 article says it began that year, maybe this is where i got it from >< Yay for looking like a huge, mistaken dork.--Terran Officer 05:19, June 13, 2010 (UTC)